This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Freedom FROM religion?

I was watching some far-right anti-Islam video a few moments ago, and something struck me. The video warned that Islam will grow exponentially because Muslim women have higher birth rates, and went on to offer statistics of the Muslim population in 100 years. The assumption is that Muslim mum = Muslim baby.

Does it not seem ridiculous to be assigning someone a religion 50 years before they're even born?!

What is more, we're always hearing people saying they were 'born a Muslim' or 'born a Christian'.

How can anyone claim that we live in a society in which we have freedom from religion, realistically? With these pressures and assumptions, surely only the most courageous can break through such labels and form their own religious identity?

Reply 1

Sabertooth

20

Beekeeper

With these pressures and assumptions, surely only the most courageous can break through these labels?

Pretty much yeah. Have you not heard of the kind of punishments Muslims hand out to people who convert both in Muslim countries and in Britain? I can't remember the last time I heard of someone getting badly punished for converting from Christianity.

Reply 2

adamrules247

20

I want freedom FROM athiests. Unfortunatly that is so difficult on this forum.

Reply 3

userFN-2187

10

adamrules247

I want freedom FROM athiests. Unfortunatly that is so difficult on this forum.

Prepare to be flamed.

Reply 4

Beekeeper

OP

13

adamrules247

I want freedom FROM athiests. Unfortunatly that is so difficult on this forum.

Yup, there was a time when this was the case. It was called 'the Dark Ages'.

Reply 5

nolongerhearthemusic

13

Who claims we have freedom from religion?

Reply 6

Meus

20

Beekeeper

I was watching some far-right anti-Islam video a few moments ago, and something struck me. The video warned that Islam will grow exponentially because Muslim women have higher birth rates, and went on to offer statistics of the Muslim population in 100 years. The assumption is that Muslim mum = Muslim baby.

Does it not seem ridiculous to be assigning someone a religion 50 years before they're even born?!

What is more, we're always hearing people saying they were 'born a Muslim' or 'born a Christian'.

How can anyone claim that we live in a society in which we have freedom from religion, realistically? With these pressures and assumptions, surely only the most courageous can break through such labels and form their own religious identity?

Hi,

I think this attitude perfectly illustrates the mindset of many in regards to religion and theology. You have to take into account that religion has nothing to do with the man-made concept of democracy, or "due process", or cultural standards at all. There is no real comparison to the concept of faith in a creator, and social standards are by far the worst comparison. You can't argue "we're free in society so how can you be born a Muslim". When a devout Christian or Muslim speaks of being "born" into a religion, they mean that the individual at heart has the belief of God in them and by nature are not attracted towards topics of sin e.g. lying, stealing, murder etc. Another example would be, if a child is born a Christian/Muslim, then that the child is innocent in the eyes of God.

It is based on the concept of sin. If you are born innocent (in theological terms, Muslim/Christian/believer of God), then you have to be wary of sin as that innocence is ultimately put up to the test throughout life.

It has nothing to do with being "free" from a social standpoint.

Reply 7

niall c

Meus

Hi,

I think this attitude perfectly illustrates the mindset of many in regards to religion and theology. You have to take into account that religion has nothing to do with the man-made concept of democracy, or "due process", or cultural standards at all. There is no real comparison to the concept of faith in a creator, and social standards are by far the worst comparison. You can't argue "we're free in society so how can you be born a Muslim". When a devout Christian or Muslim speaks of being "born" into a religion, they mean that the individual at heart has the belief of God in them and by nature are not attracted towards topics of sin e.g. lying, stealing, murder etc. Another example would be, if a child is born a Christian/Muslim, then that the child is innocent in the eyes of God.

It is based on the concept of sin. If you are born innocent (in theological terms, Muslim/Christian/believer of God), then you have to be wary of sin as that innocence is ultimately put up to the test throughout life.

It has nothing to do with being "free" from a social standpoint.

This is utter ******** and remarkably independent of reality, albeit the uncomfortable logical consequence of actually taking your religion seriously.

I might add that the central tenant of Christianity is that we are all born in sin, thus necessitating the whole vicarious redemption shtick, irrespective of our parents' moronic metaphysical mindsets.

Also, anyone that believes in 'sin' has both my contempt and pity.

Reply 8

danadd9

12

It's a desperate attempt to keep religion on a life support. It doesn't matter how many 'converts' there are, religion is being hollowed out and people aren't accepting it.

Reply 9

Meus

20

niall c

This is utter ******** and remarkably independent of reality, albeit the uncomfortable logical consequence of actually taking your religion seriously.

I might add that the central tenant of Christianity is that we are all born in sin, thus necessitating the whole vicarious redemption shtick, irrespective of our parents' moronic metaphysical mindsets.

Also, anyone that believes in 'sin' has both my contempt and pity.

Admittedly, I know little about Christian tenants however I'm fairly confident the matter of "innocence" in theology is directly related to sin. My explanation above, however, was accurate from an Islamic perspective.

Also, anyone that believes in 'sin' has both my contempt and pity.

Why? Most "sins" are what people universally find immoral or wrong. The most famous set of sins can be understood from looking at the 10 Commandments. Whilst people that don't believe in God share the same principles, they view those principles as simply a matter of morals whilst those who believe in God view them as both an issue of morality and an issue of judgement. I don't think there are too many differences between how those two groups view sin.

Reply 10

Xenopus

9

Islam is one of those religions which persecute family members who try to leave the faith, or at least I get that impression. I'm sure not all Muslim families are like this, especially those who live in the West, but you hear stories of fathers and brothers killing siblings who don't conform, because they bring disgrace on the family. I'm sure that being a Muslim is a choice for a lot of people, and that they aren't forced into it, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who also don't have much in the way of choice. I've heard similar things about Catholic families (not the killing bit), and probably other religions have this problem, but Christians don't tend to be quite as forceful with it, though perhaps this is not true in America, where Christian extremists do exist. I personally would not want to be born into a strict family that belonged to any religion; choice is a fundamental aspect of religion, if it is to be of any worth.

Reply 11

Tefhel

12

It's freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion.
(At first I thought you were doing that deliberately to make a point, but then you said how can anyone claim that we have freedom from religion, which they don't.)
Freedom of religion means you can choose what religion you want to practice, which is true, you can.

Reply 12

Yapmiyor

adamrules247

I want freedom FROM athiests.

How exactly are atheists oppressing you?

Meus

xxx

There is no need to complicate things. The issue is about labelling children with the religious beliefs of their parents.

Tefhel

It's freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion.

Why shouldn't we have the right to claim freedom from religion?

Reply 13

adamrules247

20

Yapmiyor

How exactly are atheists oppressing you?

There is no need to complicate things. The issue is about labelling children with the religious beliefs of their parents.

Why shouldn't we have the right to claim freedom from religion?

I suggest you read this. Oh look, athiests being aggressive.

Reply 14

Yapmiyor

adamrules247

xxx

There is a difference between aggression and robust criticism.

Reply 15

desi_jatt

You are born into the religion of your parents, if you want to change religion sometime during your life that's your agenda, and if you want to stop following religion altogether then your just a plank who spends far too much time reading online conspiracies and the like.

Reply 16

adamrules247

20

Yapmiyor

There is a difference between aggression and robust criticism.

No, in that article Arshbishop Dawkin's and friends are clearly being aggressive

Reply 17

birdsong1

Beekeeper

Does it not seem ridiculous to be assigning someone a religion 50 years before they're even born?!

Unfortunately, no. We can glean, from stats, probabilities like P(Muslim | mother is muslim), and those probabilities are quite high. (Of course, they might change, but that's hoping a bit much.)

Beekeeper

What is more, we're always hearing people saying they were 'born a Muslim' or 'born a Christian'.

There's a bit of a distinction between Dawkins' complaint and the assignment complaint. We can, indeed, guess the probability a child will eventually become Christian, Muslim, given its heritage, without worrying about finer distinctions like whether they're Muslim, Christian at the particular moment.

Reply 18

xxaleka

adamrules247

I suggest you read this. Oh look, athiests being aggressive.

If the bishop had been someone who devoutly believes in fairies, and had been speaking on that instead of God, most people would have responded with ridicule and derision (far greater than that of the atheists). Well, to atheists, believing in God is just as ridiculous as believing in fairies; there's no evidence for the existence of either.

When you look at it that way, the atheists' response doesn't seem agressive in the slightest.

Reply 19

Yapmiyor

adamrules247

No, in that article Arshbishop Dawkin's and friends are clearly being aggressive

No, you think that he is being aggressive because religious people such as yourself have become accustomed to others treading softly around your beliefs. Therefore, you perceive comments which in areas such as politics, art and science would be regarded as standard, robust criticism as aggression.

Freedom FROM religion?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you